Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know • Hacker News Board

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#551

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #338

csee wrote: post #183

While reading this piece I got a little depressed that most journalism is just such utter trash compared to it. I've read so many articles on ivermectin and none of them gave me even ten percent of the clarity that this article gave me. Can you imagine if writing and journalism of this calibre was commonplace among practising "journalists"? And look at how this piece compares to the CDC's and WHO's science communicat…

NIH is in charge of research. CDC takes the research and makes recommendations. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-... NIH seems to have pretty good analysis into Ivermectin. For some reason or another, people don't know it exists. Its pretty straightforward frankly. Turns out that people on the internet are terrible at meta-analysis.

> Turns out that people on the internet are terrible at meta-analysis.

Color me surprised.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#552

Post by comicjk » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #473

comicjk wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I wonder, though - the author has written a lot about political signaling and trust. I wouldn't put it past him to add a joke that's deliberately anathema to liberals, in order to relax the hackles of the conservatives he's trying to convince to use real medicine.

Why do you think the joke could be joke could be viewed as anathema to liberals in particular? I was trying to dissect this comment and couldn't figure out the political angle.

It's not liberal vs conservative in a policy sense, but in a cultural sense, much more important for signaling. I think many liberals (I include myself) would say it's racially tinged to joke that a doctor and a drug dealer must be related because they have the same Spanish name.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#553

Post by SkeuomorphicBee » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #515

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the writing is fantastic, but I'm very disappointed by the take that "everyone was wrong", by the implication that doctors didn't know they should treat for worms before giving immunosuppressants. Guess what, doctors in the developing world already knew that, it was always the standard practice on Brazilian hospitals. In fact, ivermectin was in very high demand in hospitals before it was suspected to be a Cov…

So why hasn’t that come up before in these studies?

Because it was not related to Covid. If someone with heart problems is admitted with Covid they will receive their heart medications in the hospital, that doesn't mean that now heart medication is a Covid medication, so doesn't get mentioned in studies. The same goes for dewormer, it was in normal use against worms. Only after people started believing that it could be a treatment for Covid, that it started being studied for that (with different protocols). And then we found out that it is just a dewormer like we thought in the beginning.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#554

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

romeros wrote: post #287

astrange wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has an earlier piece whose point is that the WHO can never be accurate, because they always have to prioritize "sounding trustworthy" over accuracy, and random blogs don't.

WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…

> Dr. Fauci knew that a lot of the things he was saying might not be 100% accurate and yet he did it. The reason being that on the whole his message was a net positive effect on the public.

This is now milked for more than it is worth by those that would like to discredit him but at the same time have probably never held a position of some responsibility towards a populace that is ill equipped to deal with scientific uncertainty.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#555

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

tqi wrote: post #406

romeros wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need to clarify. I am not implying that WHO / CDC is lying outright. It's just that they have to be very careful and choose the right message to convey to the general public. It does mean you might have to downplay some things which might be true but will cause more harm than good if emphasized. I personally can never do that but I won't judge people who are in a situation where every thing they say has a huge impa…

I think that rationale is patronizing nonsense. At best, this behavior is short-sighted and forgets erosion of trust is cumulative.

Agreed it is patronizing. Knowing quite a few people, I'm not sure that isn't the right approach. People just want to get on with their lives, they don't want to know the degree of uncertainty behind decision x or y. And they'll believe anybody that tells them whatever they want to hear that allows them to get on with their lives. A guy like Fauci has very little choice: he can either lie, or he can cause a mass panic or a run on critical resources. The general public isn't going to hold back when they believe toilet paper or masks are going to be in short supply when they feel that they need them, restraint is for other people.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#556

Post by yorwba » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #86

darrenf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When they invented antibiotics, people began predicting "the end of disease." Fast forward a few decades and we have the rise of scary antibiotic-resistant infections. > Medical stuff doesn't work the way most people would like to imagine it does. This sounds like a terrible thing to conclude. I'm rather unsettled to see it lauded here on HN. Indeed, this exact thing is headline news in the UK today from our Health…

Parasites are notoriously hard to treat. They are harder to treat than bacterial infection. Places with lots of parasitic infections need better infrastructure and general hygiene to prevent infection. They don't need all the locals actively breeding drug-resistant parasites. Parasites are enough of a nightmare without cavalierly passing out drugs for funsies.

The WHO's guideline for "preventive chemotherapy to control soil-transmitted helminth infections in at-risk population groups" https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258983 isn't about "passing out drugs for funsies". They recommend mass drug administration for at-risk groups because hundreds of millions of people are suffering from parasitic worm infections that can easily be treated with a single dose of a cheap anthelmintic drug, but diagnosing every single case beforehand would be much more expensive.

Of course improving hygiene to prevent infection is important (that's also stressed in the guideline), but that will take much longer, while mass drug administration has immediate benefits.

Fear of drug resistance isn't a good reason to withhold treatment from people who really need it. The WHO's much more sensible strategy is to encourage research into alternative drugs in case drug resistance becomes a significant concern.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#557

Post by he0001 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

So the conclusion is that if you are already sick, your chances to beat COVID-19 are lower? Doesn’t this apply to many other drugs as well?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#558

Post by mewpmewp2 » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #244

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these paragraphs in response to? > I claim that with ivermectin, even the people who don’t usually lie were saying it was ineffective, and they were saying it more directly and decisively than liars usually do. But most people can’t translate Pharma → English fluently enough to know where the space of “things people routinely lie about and nobody worries about it too much” ends. So they incredibly reasonably…

> Anyone who claims current vaccines are unsafe or ineffective Needs to come up with some compelling evidence. That's what your evaluation is missing.

What about this testimonial on how one of the trials was performed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5_gpJW7Euo

Or testimonial from Maddie de Garay's mother, also about how the trial for children was performed?

This article: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

And how many others have not come forward or been censored?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#559

Post by dreadlordbone » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

judahmeek wrote: post #531

gunapologist99 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First world countries are in the process of conducting RCTs testing Ivermectin, for example the activ-6 and covid-out studies in the US. ... "in the process of"? How long has ivermectin existed? How long has the pandemic been around for? How long has ivermectin been claimed to have huge benefits for, regardless of the source? Isn't it possible that there are some other reasons why RCT's haven't been conducted yet b…

Big Pharma isn't a singular entity. In this case, if Ivermectin was so effective against Covid, then Merck would be commercially incentivised to prove that. When you combine that fact with the facts that complex problems rarely have simple solutions, that such high levels of collaboration are rare, & that the same people promoting Ivermectin are also promoting theories of 2020 election fraud, it's pretty easy to doub…

Well the patent expired and then Merck created Molnupiravir, so I don't see any incentive there.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#560

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 17, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #369

idrios wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also why trust in these institutions is at an all time low. When your decision-makers are telling you lies and half truths for your own good, it becomes harder to know when they're telling the truth. This is the environment that causes fringe groups and theories to thrive.

Or why they don’t trust doctors in general, because medicine is a very inexact science filled with lies and half truths along with real truths? I get that might be unnerving to many (even if medicine is overall beneficial), but these people really sound like a classic case of “perfect is the enemy of good.”

A doctor I know described it like this:

"Doctors are like monkeys with hammers trying to fix computers. We bang against stuff and will try a lot of things if we don't know what you've got. We may even get it right. But if you have a broken leg, an appendix that needs removal, a clear case of something that can be treated with anti-biotics, then we can perform small miracles."

I don't know enough of the profession to estimate how accurate that statement is but it has colored my view.